Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> MJ Ray <email@example.com> a tapoté :
>> Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct.
> Can't your mailer delete duplicate? I do not want to be guessing
> whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I
> send a mail to the list.
Mark, it would be nice of you to at least use a Mail-Followup-To
header if you feel strongly about this. It gives you a stronger
practical position to complement your stronger moral position.
>> On 2003-08-29 17:32:33 +0100 Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > But describing a software is not the most interesting thing. While
>> > describing and analysing a book is the most interesting thing you
>> > can do with a book (apart from reading it, obviously).
>> I disagree. I think editing a book in all its many ways is the most
>> interesting thing, not describing and analysing it. Do you learn more
>> when you edit something, or when you read it?
> Definitely when I read it. If I read books, it's mainly because it's a
> way to share knowledge.
> You can edit a book only if you got some knowledge to share.
Nonsense. Observe while I splice the Revelation of St. John into RFC 822.
> And if you got some knowledge, you can wrote a book too. If you think
> it's important to do a collaborative work, you can do a book with
> someone. What's the problem?
Those are all possibilities. But the question is not "what can I do
without this work," but "is what I can derive from this work enough to
make this work Free?" The answer, for the GFDL, is no.
>> > You cut my message at the wrong place, where I explain why I say
>> > it's pointless.
>> Sorry. I did read the rest of it, but I have to cut it somewhere and
>> that seemed like a good point. I don't agree that thinking about a
>> book is modifying it any more than thinking about a program is
>> modifying it. Maybe it is in a way, but it's not what we normally
> Sure, normally we only speak of software because with the books it's
> not really a big deal.
> If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be
> granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can
> regive his speech at the infinite.
His speech has not been fixed in a tangible form.
> If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be
> licensed too...
But see copyright law for references to performances, perhaps with a
side-trip to see the Grateful Dead.
Brian T. Sniffen email@example.com